Appeal No. 2002-2050
Application No. 08/973,019
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d
281, 227 USPQ 657, 666 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Orthopedic Equipment Co.
v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012, 217 USPQ 193, 199 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Appellant contends (Request, page 4) that
the Board first fails to here make clear its above-
noted reliance on the Elton '077 teachings as
supplementing those of Elton '565 or the manner that it
merges these teachings together, much less what the
relied on combined teachings of Shildneck and Elton
'565 translates to in terms of what parts of the
references contain these teachings. This failure to be
specific is a clear violation of precedent.
Appellant (Request, page 4-5) points to our statement on page 11
of the decision regarding "the combined disclosures of Elton and
Shildneck" outweighing the evidence of the Fenton Declaration
testimony to "suggest that a cable structure is a substitute for
bar windings."
First, our "reliance on" Elton '077 at pages 6-9 of our
decision is primarily a response to Mr. Aabo's discussion of and
reliance upon Elton '077. Second, the examiner (Answer, pages 4-
5) clearly indicates what parts of the references are relied upon
for the rejection. We then further elaborate upon the examiner's
explanation of the rejection with cites to specific portions of
the references substantially at pages 6-9 and 15 of our decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007